Windows Vista main theme

[runawayprisoner]

I find the MacBook Air ad song very suitable for Windows Vista main theme!

The link: YouTube - Yael Naim ''New Soul'' with Lyrics
The lyrics:

"I'm a new soul.
I came to this strange world, hoping I could learn a bit 'bout how to give and take.
But since I came here, felt the joy and love here, finding myself making every possible mistake."

Jeez... I even thought the song was made to describe the OS. It's EXACTLY what I've experienced with Vista. What do you guys think?

[Spyhop]

I think the song "This OS Sucks. Skip It And Use A Mac, Ubuntu, Or Stick With XP Until Windows 7 Comes Out" fits Vista better. I think it was performed by the Oakridge Boys.

[runawayprisoner]

Well, but it's true Vista found itself making... a lot of mistakes and BSODed like crazy for me. That and it's indeed a new soul... trying to blend into the world. The "love" of XP users killed it, too.

[Phil]

A lot of people are eager to bash Vista.....which costs 6 billion dollars btw.....well Bill could afford to make a 6 billion dollar screw-up...I mean he gave 1 billion of his own money to help pay for Xbox 360 Warranties/replacements...how generous

[runawayprisoner]

Not like bashing... just realizing a sad fact. Let's face it: Microsofts' earlier children always get the cold shoulders. Hey, did we ever switch from Win98 to WinXP before DirectX 9.0c games come out? I mean... how long did it take for us to move from Win 9x to Win XP? Same thing could be happening here... just... a little too soon. You'd expect to have XP 2, or XP 3 before a whole new operating system is out. Sadly, a whole new OS is out, and we are not currently appealed. Maybe... when DirectX 11 comes out, things will be different.

[mudlord]

Maybe... when DirectX 11 comes out, things will be different.

We don't need DX11, DX9 is just fine >.<

[Phil]

seconded

[d0x!]

then there be no progress.
:/

but yeah dx 9 is still sexy :P

[mudlord]

then there be no progress.
:/

but yeah dx 9 is still sexy :P

No progress?

Please elaborate on a technical scale why there will be no progress.

Many of the features in DX10 can be duplicated in OpenGL or can be done in DX9. Crysis proved that.

[runawayprisoner]

That's why DX 11 would do. Hey, we said the same thing to XP when we had DirectX 8, too. Why bother getting XP while you can run DX8 games on Win 98, right? And why bother upgrading for DirectX 9 when you can run DX9 games on Win 98, too???? Hmm... well, I don't see many people using Win 98 to play games nowadays. It's so nostalgic... the system that I used to game on for so many years... The only reason why I'm using Win XP now is because they don't have Win 98 drivers for most of my hardwares.

[d0x!]

Originally Posted by mudlord

No progress?

Please elaborate on a technical scale why there will be no progress.

Many of the features in DX10 can be duplicated in OpenGL or can be done in DX9. Crysis proved that.

i made a comment to your post about not needing dx11, so i thought it was clear i was meaning dx11 (<---"progress"). I didnt mention anything about dx10.

but runawayprisoner summed it up nicely.

[mudlord]

And why bother upgrading for DirectX 9 when you can run DX9 games on Win 98, too???? Hmm... well, I don't see many people using Win 98 to play games nowadays. It's so nostalgic... the system that I used to game on for so many years... The only reason why I'm using Win XP now is because they don't have Win 98 drivers for most of my hardwares.

I see you completely missed my point.

My point was in a technical sense, DX9/OpenGL 2.0 is more than enough for graphics. DX10, sure adds some nice extras, but they are made redundant if you know how to code properly. Such as geometry shaders.

Thus, DX10 is a complete waste. I would love to hear some Vista fanboys prove me wrong. Just make sure you have technical evidence.

Bye.

i made a comment to your post about not needing dx11, so i thought it was clear i was meaning dx11 (<---"progress"). I didnt mention anything about dx10.

The point remained. Current APIs are more than enough. We don't need anything extra. What we need is developers with more talent, than relying solely on what MS offers them.

[runawayprisoner]

True 'nuff that we don't need much more than what we do currently. But hey, new methods help sometimes. Who knows? Maybe we'll start seeing amazing things once DX10 is more tapped into. AFAIK, nothing has made use of the Geometry Shader feature of DX10 yet.

[Xtreme2damax]

I think everyone has missed the main point of DX10, it was never to make games look pretty and it isn't something that can't be done in OpenGL or DX9.

The main point of DirectX 10 is to do what OpenGL version xx and DirectX 9.0 can do much faster.

For example having more action on the screen at once, more physics, more objects without incurring a drastic performance hit that rendering the same exact thing in OpenGL or DX9 would have.

DX10 takes what OpenGL and DX9 does and does it much faster and efficiently.

It may not show at the moment but it'll show as developers get used to the functions of the new api and can implement it's functions and feature more efficiently.

The whole DX10 looking pretty, better than anything else and having realistic graphics was a marketing scheme.

The reason they went with the whole mess about DX10 looking better than OpenGL or DX9 and super realistic is the reason I propose the following question:

What sounds better and would more likely grab a gamers attention and not confuse the general public/general gamer population?

1. DX10 bring unsurpassed realistic visuals to the forefront allowing you to play your game like never before.

or

2. DX10 can render more simultaneous action, objects and physics on screen faster than other api's without much of a hit in performance in a side by side comparison.

The second option would most likely leave most of the general gaming community going wtf as most don't understand the complexities along with gaming such as physics or API's. They just want to play their game without learning most of the technical things about gaming.

The first option would most likely grab a gamers attention the most and is something that can be understood by nearly all of the people who play games either on a console or a PC which is why Microsoft went along with it and touted as a feature.

[runawayprisoner]

Well to sum it up, you meant to say that DX10 was intended to... improve overall performance, right? Sadly, it's "decreasing" performance instead of "increasing" it. Or it may be that Vista decreases the gain in performance that DX10 gives out... thus DX10 is not able to outperform DX9 or OpenGL as expected.

[Xtreme2damax]

No, I'm saying DX10 is meant to render more simultaneous action on screen without a drastic performance decrease meaning you won't take as much of a hit when compared to running it in DX9.

The only reasons XP and DX9 are better performing is because of the sloppy Vista drivers by Nvidia and ATI which have been causing problems.

And note I'm also not comparing Vista Performance to XP or vice versa.

You have to admit Nvidia's or ATI's drivers haven't exactly been great although they have improved from when Vista has been first released they still have kinks that need to be worked out.

Also you have to consider Crysis and other games aren't true DX10 games and just DX9 games with a sloppily implemented DX10 mode.

Also the main point is that the performance decrease won't be as severe with DX10 as DX9 or OpenGL when ther is a lot of simultaneous action on screen at once.

Note I'm not comparing XP vs Vista performance so you can ditch the XP vs Vista performance argument. I'm discussing and comparing running the same game on Vista under DX9 and DX10 and comparing them.

Also I expect fairly soon that performance in Vista will squash performance under XP given I can run Vista on my dual core AMD processor, Geforce 6150LE and 1 gig of ram with virtually no degradation in perfomance game or os wise.

[runawayprisoner]

Ehh... any proofs to back up what you claimed? I have proofs for the other way around.

Anyway, I'm not comparing XP vs Vista. Performance-wise, Vista DX9 loses to XP DX9 already... and that's not a driver issue. I mean... you can argue that DirectX 10 drivers haven't matured yet, but what are you going to say about DirectX 9 drivers? That's one thing. I can also run Windows Vista with a Celeron processor (single core), 1 gig of RAM, and with an Intel graphics processor, too. And of course it's not going to degrade your performance so drastically it's noticeable. And I'm not bashing anything here, just stating the fact that Windows Vista degrades performance to the point where the gain from DirectX 10 is not even comparable to DirectX 9 under Windows XP.

[Xtreme2damax]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Ehh... any proofs to back up what you claimed? I have proofs for the other way around.

Anyway, I'm not comparing XP vs Vista. Performance-wise, Vista DX9 loses to XP DX9 already... and that's not a driver issue. I mean... you can argue that DirectX 10 drivers haven't matured yet, but what are you going to say about DirectX 9 drivers? That's one thing. I can also run Windows Vista with a Celeron processor (single core), 1 gig of RAM, and with an Intel graphics processor, too. And of course it's not going to degrade your performance so drastically it's noticeable. And I'm not bashing anything here, just stating the fact that Windows Vista degrades performance to the point where the gain from DirectX 10 is not even comparable to DirectX 9 under Windows XP.

Have you compared Vista DX10 to Vista DX9? That's what I'm trying to say since you can not compare Vista performance with XP since they are different operating systems and Vista is technically doing more under the hood than XP such as caching the most used programs, games and applications into memory to launch faster and more responsively and a host of other things it's doing under the hood.

Since Vista has a bit of overhead when compared to XP, a fair comparison would be Vista DX9 vs Vista DX10.

I heard Vista DX10 outshines DX9 in intensive scenes with a lot of physics, objects flying around, explosions and gunfire.

Also I think it would be fair to at least wait for a true DX10 game before denouncing Vista. Mostly all games so far are DX9 with a poor implementation of DX10 slapped on.

[runawayprisoner]

Yes, I have compared Vista DX10 to Vista DX9. Actually, in here I posted some shots of PCSX2 (svn327, gsdx 0.18). I see virtually no difference in Vista DX10 vs Vista DX9. And of course, Vista Aero is running, just like XP Energy Blue is running. Throwing the XP shot aside, you can see that DX10 yields only a 5fps increase.

That's it for now, since I don't think comparisons with games like Crysis as benchmarks will be satisfactory. In this case, DX10 is really utilized for better emulation, and it doesn't yield such a performance boost. Enough said. I'm still dual-booting, and I still love Vista for the ease of multitasking, and to be quite honest, the OS flies on my rig. But that still doesn't mean it's not a bad one.

[Phil]

just because Vista is doing more doesnt mean it's achieving more...